For those concerned with Free Speech (or Porn), it is time to get active.

Faith, it seems your position is that protecting the freedom of expression of people who make pornography is a bad thing. If I am wrong, disregard the rest of this message. If I am right, please continue.What you are failing to understand is that your opinion or your religion's opinion of the content of speech is absolutely unimportant. People get to say what they like and the government doesn't get to stop them and you damn sure don't, both with good reason.The very concept that makes American freedom noble is that it is for everyone, including pervy types who like watching extremely dirty movies. The thing that is wonderful about the bill of rights is that it doesn't (or shouldn't in it's original intent) just protect the popular thing.You say that freedom of speech for those who are saying things or showing things that you don't like is ignoble? I say that one of the most ignoble acts an American can engage in is trying to limit the freedom of their countrymen because they don't like the way those freedoms are being used.If negative effects of pornography made by adults for adults could be demonstrated, then it would be a different story. No such negative effects have ever been shown to the best of my knowledge, and if you think there are such effects, I invite you to start a thread and provide evidence.In closing, I find it ironic that you would invoke the founding fathers in support of violating the right of free expression. I am nearly certain that, should they suddenly show up in the here and now, they would have much bigger concerns that some pictures of naked people, such as the violations of personal liberty engaged in by conservatives and driven by the religious right.

When Ted Bundy was arrested, there was no pornography in his home. There were quite a few brochures for cheerleader camps attended by middle- and high-school girls.It was only much later, well after his conviction in Florida for the murder of a young girl (who's name and age escape me) and his rabid attack of the occupants of a sorority house, that pornography entered his story during a series of death row interviews. The writer doing the interviews and most observers at the time believed his claims were sympathy seeking ploys, attempts to shift blame away from him. At the same time, he found God and offerred to tell where several of his victims were buried only if his death sentence were commuted.At least the Bundy reference had some relation to pornography, even if it was a spurious one. The reference concerning the BTK killer does not refer to pornography in any way.Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Perhaps you aren't trotting out the old, discredited idea that pornography incites violence. It could be, from what you wrote, that you are saying we should try and protect our children from serial killers. That I agree with.

Three reasons.1. Bundy's claims are highly suspect. (See my post #20 in this thread)2. Bundy was clearly a violently disturbed individual. We have no way of knowing if an obsession with Porn (if such an obsession existed) was causative or a symptom.3. Even if he had a porn obsession and it were causative, he is one example and a generalization cannot be drawn from it.

What on Earth does the forced prostitution of children have to do with increased sexual freedom? I think that forced prostitution is pretty clearly a lack of sexual freedom.You go on to claim that: That is in fact the opposite of the truth, like many of your claims, Faith. Back it up or shut up.This message has been edited by mikehager, 06-28-2005 11:29 AM

I certainly have followed the thread. Read every post. That has nothing to do with the contradiction of quoting forced prostitution as as a negative side effect of sexual freedom (which you did and I will quote it if needed) when forced prostitution is exactly the opposite of sexual freedom.Also, as has been stated by at least one other person, Schrafinator never said that India is superior because of sexual imagery. Lets make this a test case. You have made a claim, Faith. I quote it: I am challenging the inherent implication in this, that Schrafinator made the claim that India was superior due to religious sexual imagery. I have reviewed all her posts in this thread and she never said anything that could be so interperted.So, either support your claim or withdraw it. That's how debate works. Can you do it?No reasonable person will yell what you claim. You preface the paragraph containing your views of pornography with the clear disclaimer that it is your opinion. If you claim that your opinion reflects actual fact, then you would have to support it. By the way, in this case, your opinion does not reflect the facts, but that's okay. It's just your opinion.As far as the politeness, you get back from people what you put out to them. Get the point?

Faith, way back in message 124 of this thread, you asserted that Schrafinator had claimed that that India was in some was superior (I presume from context you meant superior to the U.S.) because of sexual religious imagery.A quick survey made it seem to me that she had had done nothing of the kind, and I asked you to support your statement or withdraw it (see message #136 of this thread).You have not addressed you error at all. Look, it's not that hard. Just openly admit you were wrong and withdraw the statement. Is there some reason you find that difficult to do?

So, the source you incorrectly cited took issue with your interpertation of her points and several other people pointed it out, yet still you believe you are right.Unsurprising. Disappointing but unsurprising. What exactly would it take to get you to admit that you are wrong? Make no mistake, you are in this case. Everyone can see that but you. Why is that?